|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 5, 2011 0:49:00 GMT
And we already know that our trusted academic professors rigged the game by subtracting cloud top reflection and keeping mitigating cloud bottom reflection. BRAVO! Nice rant. can you provide a shred of evidence on this point? Richard: I don't think anyone is holding anything back....we just don't know with any degree of certainty how clouds/etc effect climate. The old chicken or the egg. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 5, 2011 3:11:11 GMT
trbixler, your sarcasm is entirely unnecessary. Have you asked if icefisher's blobs include all these effects? Every time I bring up this program you come up with minor and irrelevant criticisms, yet you never engage constructively. Are you trying to be a mini-Steve McIntyre? Icefisher, and others, have a problem with the basic radiative consequences of things such as "back radiation". Some of the effects appear counter-intuitive to people. This opens an opportunity for fake arguments about lack of adherence to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or confusion about why increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere doesn't cause the atmosphere to cool rather than warm. This simple program aims to demonstrate that basic physics principles underlie the "greenhouse effect". Better, more scientific, and more constructive questions to ask would be - *If* I increase the number of layers what happens to the result (as it happens any number of layers can be chosen. More layers slows the program down)? *If* I add in convection what happens to the results? *If* I vary emissivity from layer to layer what happens? etc. etc. Once you spend a bit of time examining the program and the underlying scientific principles, you will conclude that the intuitive answer to all the above is that the temperature will still rise for an increase in emissivity/absorptivity. In other words, the result (increased emissivity/absorptivity causes warming) is insensitive to attempts to tweak the program. Sir I make a living programming and have done so for 47 years. I write and support software that is used in many countries. I do not enjoy extrapolations from "simple diagrams" or "simple programs". I have written software that has successfully returned astronauts from space, as such the atmosphere does not seem "simple"to me. If one looks at the atmosphere in real time it is not simple and to look at it statically is not even a close approximation to what the real time atmosphere is doing. Maybe you enjoy simple programs. I enjoy complex real time systems. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 5, 2011 5:19:14 GMT
Steve: Once you spend a bit of time examining the program and the underlying scientific principles, you will conclude that the intuitive answer to all the above is that the temperature will still rise for an increase in emissivity/absorptivity. In other words, the result (increased emissivity/absorptivity causes warming) is insensitive to attempts to tweak the program.
Sir
I make a living programming and have done so for 47 years. I write and support software that is used in many countries. I do not enjoy extrapolations from "simple diagrams" or "simple programs". I have written software that has successfully returned astronauts from space, as such the atmosphere does not seem "simple"to me. If one looks at the atmosphere in real time it is not simple and to look at it statically is not even a close approximation to what the real time atmosphere is doing.
Right on the mark. You create programs to operate in the realities of the atmosphere. Steve has created an atmosphere to operate consistently with his theory.
Steve you need some evidence that the atmosphere is operating as you believe it to be. Its exceedingly easy to create models that founder in the real world.
What usually causes such models to be applied untested is some outside pressure and seldom is it a result of calm deliberation.
The battle of Tarawa comes to mind. A nice beach and a beach landing craft. What else do you need? What they found out at the cost of hundreds of lives was water to float the boats. The landing craft grounded on reefs 500 yards from the beach. There is theory and then there is reality.
Its my thought the absorption and reemission of radiation probably exacts a time delay through some uncounted number of layers leading to a small amount of warming. Most of us think in kilowatt hours, here we are probably dealing with watt picoseconds. Simply assuming the sole greenhouse effect is greenhouse gases is probably itself a misnomer as nothing is completely transparent.
Finally, there is so much we don't know about light and energy. At what point does a material cease being conductive and become subject to arbitrarily designed radiating layers? All the best minds of the AGW crowd was unable to take a single step beyond philosophy in answering that question. So we are at the point of simply assuming the water is deep enough and that CO2 is the only possible variable. . . .the methodology actually described in AR4 but denied tooth and nail by every sycophant from here to timbuktu.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 5, 2011 5:54:02 GMT
The battle of Tarawa comes to mind. A nice beach and a beach landing craft. What else do you need? What they found out at the cost of hundreds of lives was water to float the boats. The landing craft grounded on reefs 500 yards from the beach. There is theory and then there is reality. Its my thought the absorption and reemission of radiation probably exacts a time delay through some uncounted number of layers leading to a small amount of warming. Most of us think in kilowatt hours, here we are probably dealing with watt picoseconds. Simply assuming the sole greenhouse effect is greenhouse gases is probably itself a misnomer as nothing is completely transparent. Finally, there is so much we don't know about light and energy. At what point does a material cease being conductive and become subject to arbitrarily designed radiating layers? All the best minds of the AGW crowd was unable to take a single step beyond philosophy in answering that question. So we are at the point of simply assuming the water is deep enough and that CO2 is the only possible variable. . . .the methodology actually described in AR4 but denied tooth and nail by every sycophant from here to timbuktu. Amazing rant. How do you link an old battle with AGW? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2011 9:49:43 GMT
To be fair to steve his little program does adequately explain the CO2 based global warming theory, which was your question. That is all I wanted from the program. "The journey of a 1000 miles begins with one step." |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2011 10:04:20 GMT
icefisher
Your thought is missing the point. We are talking about uncountable numbers of molecules so it is possible to apply statistics. These statistics manifest themselves as the Laws of Thermodynamics.
1 So a given blob of atmosphere emits predictably and continuously according to its temperature.
2 The blob of atmosphere absorbs continuously according to the amount and spectrum of radiation incident upon it (and temperature has a more minor effect too).
3 Most of the absorbed energy is converted to heat on a far quicker timescale (100 million times quicker) than the reemission timescale.
4 Therefore the change in temperature is related to the difference between emission and absorption. The change in temperature feeds back to point 1.
Do you understand what I mean by the above three points?
|
|
|
|
Post by sujen charls on Aug 5, 2011 10:08:50 GMT
major part of the efficiency of the heating of an actual greenhouse is the trapping of the air so that the energy is not lost by convection. Keeping the hot air from escaping out the top is part of the practical "greenhouse effect", but it is common usage to refer to the infrared trapping as the "greenhouse effect" in atmospheric applications where the air trapping is not applicable.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 5, 2011 12:27:56 GMT
icefisher Your thought is missing the point. We are talking about uncountable numbers of molecules so it is possible to apply statistics. These statistics manifest themselves as the Laws of Thermodynamics. 1 So a given blob of atmosphere emits predictably and continuously according to its temperature. 2 The blob of atmosphere absorbs continuously according to the amount and spectrum of radiation incident upon it (and temperature has a more minor effect too). 3 Most of the absorbed energy is converted to heat on a far quicker timescale (100 million times quicker) than the reemission timescale. 4 Therefore the change in temperature is related to the difference between emission and absorption. The change in temperature feeds back to point 1. Do you understand what I mean by the above three points? The Blob constantly moves and changes composition. Which implies that its absorptive and emission parameters change as well as its heat capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2011 13:53:30 GMT
trbixler,
If you repeat my analysis with blobs that are constantly moving and changing composition, you won't change the basic results of my program (that temperatures will rise as emissivity/absorptivity rise). So your point is irrelevant for this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 5, 2011 14:27:43 GMT
trbixler, If you repeat my analysis with blobs that are constantly moving and changing composition, you won't change the basic results of my program (that temperatures will rise as emissivity/absorptivity rise). So your point is irrelevant for this discussion. So as the specific heat of a cell changes as its composition changes (lets say water vapor) then when its state changes (heat adsorbed or emitted) the model on a cellular level takes care of those transitions. Further as the density of the cell changes of course Newtonian physics comes into play transporting the cell and surrounding cells either up, down or transversely and changes the pressure in the surrounding cells. The surrounding cells respond to the change in pressure using both Newtonian physics ( with acceleration due to change in density as well as acceleration due to movement) and and the standard heat equations and well as changing their emission and radiation, and it makes no difference to the calculations. Rain may happen as part of the state changes, and it makes no difference? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 5, 2011 14:36:10 GMT
If you repeat my analysis with blobs that are constantly moving and changing composition, you won't change the basic results of my program (that temperatures will rise as emissivity/absorptivity rise). So your point is irrelevant for this discussion.
As long as the end points are assumed such a program will produce what ever result is needed. I get that Steve!
Since we know what is being radiated to space via absorbed solar radiation and since we know what the surface temperature is and as long as we assume the entire difference is due to backradiation the creation of a calculation to prove it is a piece of cake and you can make it robust enough that if you move the elements around it will continue to produce the desired result.
But thats the problem with models. They replicate what you believe to be true and if you are dumb enough to believe them, heck you might go so far as jumping off the town church steeple with a pair of waxed wings.
Now lets make a pig fly! This is fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2011 14:52:53 GMT
trbixler,
I didn't say it makes no difference.
You can of course add any fiddle factor you like to my program, such as moving heat via worm-holes. But you have to justify the fiddle factor as to why it can overcome the central finding that increasing emissivity/absorptivity will tend to cause a rise in temperatures.
Even so, I am clearly not claiming that my model is the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately your intervention is diverting from the point of this exercise which is to show icefisher that his even simpler model is missing a key issue and not proving what he would like it to prove.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2011 14:54:32 GMT
icefisher, to repeat in an attempt to keep on track,
Your thought is missing the point. We are talking about uncountable numbers of molecules so it is possible to apply statistics. These statistics manifest themselves as the Laws of Thermodynamics.
1 So a given blob of atmosphere emits predictably and continuously according to its temperature.
2 The blob of atmosphere absorbs continuously according to the amount and spectrum of radiation incident upon it (and temperature has a more minor effect too).
3 Most of the absorbed energy is converted to heat on a far quicker timescale (100 million times quicker) than the reemission timescale.
4 Therefore the change in temperature is related to the difference between emission and absorption. The change in temperature feeds back to point 1.
Do you understand what I mean by the above three points?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 5, 2011 21:17:15 GMT
Do you understand what I mean by the above three points?
Sure I do Steve! Do you understand what I am saying?
You cannot gain any assurance by applying statistics to your thought process or your mathematical computations (models) or any group of models or thought processes of groups of scientists.
The only way to gain assurance is via actual careful testing of the warming response to increases in CO2 in the real world or a carefully laboratory simulated world.
If say 90 watts of the surface temperature came from cloud bottom reflection giving a need for 243 watts of back radiation instead of 333 per the Trenberth diagram I am sure your program is up to the task.
|
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Aug 6, 2011 9:25:52 GMT
More on the importance of the length of exposure to sunlight:- climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8168Moreover, Postma and the ‘Slayers’ ascertained that in order to mathematically compensate for not including the cooling of the night-time, climate modellers systematically botched their work by reducing the solar heating intensity by a factor of 4, thus reducing it to minus 18C. At that point, the model cannot explain why it is ever warmer than -18C anywhere, and so it invents a greenhouse effect to raise the temperature. But the question remains: does -18C over 24 hours provide the same amount of ‘cooking’ that +30C does over 12 hours, or 90C over two hours? To give this a simpler context, GHE critic Alan Siddons says: "When a recipe says bake for an hour at 200°C, a climatologist assumes that four hours at 50 degrees will produce the same result." Fellow ‘Slayer’ Joe Olson japes with a less reverent analogy: “reminds me of the old saying....’Let's get nine women pregnant and have a baby in one month.’” In essence, the fatal error was in not including night-time in the model in the first place. If climatologists had actually modeled night-time and day-time individually, then they would have found the physically real actual solar heating intensity that is +121C at maximum, and +30C on average. “These are the real, actual values of the solar heating, and then you don’t need to use the mathematically and artificially low value of -18C,” says Postma. |
|
